Buddhist Economics
Buddhist economics is an attempt to reconcile the Buddhist approach to life, work, resources and consumption with economic practice. It problematizes the absence of ethics and the depletable nature of the environment in economic thought. Buddhism and materialism Buddhism is not a practice concerned with materialism, seeking instead to liberate people from the craving for transient things that creates suffering. Buddhist thought is often conceptualised as emphasising the 'Middle Way', the path that leads to liberation from worldly suffering. It comes from practicing Right Livelihood, which is the avoidance of violence in all forms, be it against the self, others, or the natural world. For Schumacher, the Middle Way in economics comes from reconfiguring the basic assumptions of economic thought, transitioning away from the attainment of a higher standard of living as measured by the level of consumption towards the maximum possible well-being from the minimum amount of consumption required. Put another way, nmodern economics maximises consumption by the optimal pattern of productive effort, while Buddhist economics maximises human satisfaction by the optimal pattern of productive effort http://ecological-economics.wikia.com/wiki/Mass_production_and_production_by_the_masses. Buddhism and labour His analysis springs from reconsidering labour, one of the four main resources. In modern economics, labour is viewed as a cost to be reduced for employers, and for consumers labour is something to be reduced in order to maximise the amount of leisure time to be spent on consumption. The end point of this analysis is to have "output without labour... and income without employment." Hence, automation and and the increasing use of labour-saving natural resources is sought by modern economics. In the Buddhist view, the role of labour is threefold: *personal: the devlopment of faculties and talents through activity *communal: overcoming the ego by working collectively *productive: providing for needs and wants By this conception, work and leisure are not consciously decoupled, but are instead viewed within the same continuum of necessary human activity. The ideal good is a useful one that is produced in a way that involves the skill of people, made using the minimum amount of material and time. This lines up with notion of efficiency in modern economics, whereby the minimum amount of inputs is desired; however, the aim is not to produce the maximum amount at this point; only to produce what is deemed necessary. Unemployment is seen not as a problem in that it represents slack capacity, but as a problem in itself rooted in the prioritization of goods and consumption over people. Buddhism and capital In modern economics, there is capital, which is property that enables the production of goods. There are two types of capital by the Buddhist definition: that which enhances the individual and the community by enabling the three types of labour to flourish (including the personal), and that which ignores the personal and communal and instead renders the individual subservient or surplus to the machine. If this type of capital dominates, then the act of production is not character forming and damaging to the psyche. At the same time, this type of capital displaces workers, creating unemployment. Buddhism puts primacy on natural capital, viewing the use of non-renewable sources of energy as an act of violence that is to be avoided or performed heedfully. Modern economics does not distinguish between renewable and nonrenewable resouces, reifying all dead and living matter into prices. As such, practices like shutting down still functioning coal mines because of cheaper alternatives or creating pollution to save costs are preferred over more immediately expensive options which may have long term environmental benefits. Scale of capital usage is important in Schumacher's conception of economics: in the Buddhist conception he formulates, he emphasises that dependence on imports and foreign goods is unjustifiable as it means surplus capital is required, which runs contrary to his notion of appropriate 'human size' scales for societies and species humility http://ecological-economics.wikia.com/wiki/Species_humility. Criticisms His use of Burma as a frequent example has been criticized, considering the events of the latter 20th century.